Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Chess master says intelligent design featured large in his initial literature search

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

But rushes to admit: “There’s no direct connection to my work, but some of the mathematical ingredients are the same.’”

= I poach ideas I then disown?

Comments
Mapou:
King, if the Vatican believes in Darwinian evolution, then they are serving two masters.
Thank you for excommunicating the Vatican. As I recall, they are the [lady of ill repute] of Babylon.Daniel King
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
Jerry@51: So?Daniel King
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
"Yawn. Sarcasm. How original." Yawn. Sarcasm. How unoriginalHenry Crun
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
As far as I know the Catholic Church does not support any specific mechanism of evolution.jerry
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Proper little Miss Marple, aren’t we? But I’m afraid that the comments I have made are comments that anyone, regardless of their religion or otherwise, would make if they thought evolution the most likely explanation for the origin of species.
Yawn. Sarcasm. How original. And while you think differently, your comments are typical of the type atheists make.Barb
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
But I’m afraid that the comments I have made are comments that anyone, regardless of their religion or otherwise, would make if they thought evolution the most likely explanation for the origin of species.
One has to define what one means by evolution. This remark shows a complete misunderstanding of the debate. The debate is mainly over the origin of new alleles and so far no science can explain this. There is also the issue of the origin of new body plans and control mechanisms. If you want to sound reasonable one has to understand these things and know what science knows about it. Otherwise, it will result in nonsense and ad honimens as we are seeing.
you and I know this, as do many religious people. However, the type of religious people attracted to ID find evolution incompatible with their beliefs.
Nonsense. I personally have no problem with naturalistic evolution but science does not support it. As far as I can see it is mathematically impossible. It requires tens of thousands of miracles.jerry
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
King, if the Vatican believes in Darwinian evolution, then they are serving two masters. There is no doubt that there was an evolution over billions of years but it was not Darwinian. It was a design evolution. And no, the changing beaks of finches do not constitute Darwinian evolution. It's just genetically programmed adaptation.Mapou
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Mapou:
So you can’t be a Christian and believe in evolution, pure and simple. It’s like serving two masters
Tell that to the Vatican.Daniel King
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
“But I’m afraid that the comments I have made are comments that anyone, regardless of their religion or otherwise, would make if they thought evolution the most likely explanation for the origin of species.” Henry, you and I know this, as do many religious people. However, the type of religious people attracted to ID find evolution incompatible with their beliefs.
This is a bold faced lie, of course. And if it's just a ploy to water down the religions of the world, it's weak and stupid. Christian writings, including the Bible, clearly teach that the species were designed and created by God via knowledge and wisdom. So you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution, pure and simple. It's like serving two masters. What is wrong with y'all? This nonsense makes you look stupid.Mapou
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
"But I’m afraid that the comments I have made are comments that anyone, regardless of their religion or otherwise, would make if they thought evolution the most likely explanation for the origin of species." Henry, you and I know this, as do many religious people. However, the type of religious people attracted to ID find evolution incompatible with their beliefs.Acartia_bogart
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
Proper little Miss Marple, aren't we? But I'm afraid that the comments I have made are comments that anyone, regardless of their religion or otherwise, would make if they thought evolution the most likely explanation for the origin of species.Henry Crun
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
What in these posts makes you think I’m an atheist? The lowercase "g" in god, for one thing. And the fact that every single thing you've stated has already been stated here (or on other sites I frequent) by other atheists.Barb
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Shucks! I messed up the quotes but you can figure it out.Mapou
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Crun:
Mapou, Again I have to disagree with you: design doesn’t always work like that. If you had said “development” I would have agreed, but the best designs are often those that are completely different and groundbreaking.
Not true. The best designs are those that inherit the best features from their ancestors. Why do you think modern software design is hierarchical? New stuff are build on top of old stuff. It's called bottom-up design. Why? Because it's the intelligent thing to do. But suppose you are right (I don’t think so, but just suppose): what does your hypothesis about the way the designer did it, tell you about the nature of the designer? It tells me that the designers are just like us, only much more advanced. I am not one of those fundamentalist Christians who believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient. In fact, my God, Yahweh, is an entire united and vast civilization of many, many Gods (elohim). And they do make mistakes. And yes, we humans, too, are designer elohim.Mapou
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I have been saying essentially the same thing about those who believe in Darwinian processes for years. Transitions/new life forms present two problems for naturalistic evolution. There are too few of the life forms. Second, there is no mechanism to explain the appearance of new life forms. The is no coherent theory of evolution. Until that is admitted we will get such nonsense as the above comment represents.jerry
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Pass...Axel
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
What in these posts makes you think I'm an atheist?Henry Crun
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
If you're completely convinced that ID is a "bankrupt" viewpoint and that we're all blinded by ideology, why don't you take your atheist views elsewhere?Barb
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Whatever, Barb.Henry Crun
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
Henry Crun @ 34:
Yes, you’re right, and I know it deep down. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I think that even if god descended, grabbed them all the atheists in the world by the shoulders, shook them and said “why won’t you use the brains I evolved designed for you?”, they would still deny it.
Fixed it for you.Barb
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Acartia_bogart, Yes, you're right, and I know it deep down. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I think that even if god descended, grabbed them by the shoulders, shook them and said "why won't you use the brains I evolved for you?", they would still deny it. Not that Allah ever WOULD come down and do that.....Henry Crun
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Henry, you are wasting your time here. Even if Tiktaalik was proven to be a transitional species between lungfish and tetrapods, the ID people would just argue that there are now two gaps instead of one. Even if we had fossil evidence from every generation of every lineage, from the first self-replicating molecule to the highest form of life (the sloth), these people would not be satisfied because their theory is based on religion, not science and evidence.Acartia_bogart
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
*sigh* All right, Joe. Did Shubin et al. find THE transition between fish and tetrapods? No. Did he find a late living relative of the creature that WAS the transition? Very likely. Was this an important find that indicated what the transition creature looked like, as expected? Yes. Was it found using evolution theory, even if it is a relative of the actual transition creature? Yes Has ID been used to find such fossils? Not even remotely. Will it ever be used? No as it's unusable for prediction - or anything elseHenry Crun
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Piotr- the fossils can't tell us anything unless we have the genetic evidence to support the transitions. And until someone takes fish embryos, applies targeted mutatgenesis and continues to do so until a fishapod develops, the fossil record is nothing more than "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't already believe it".Joe
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Joe, people make reasonable educated guesses based on the information available at the time. The margin of error may be wide if the information is incomplete. New data may well force you to revise your expectations. We have two sister groups: Tetrapodomorpha (tetrapods and their closest relatives) and Dipnomorpha (lungfish and their closest relatives). The earliest known dipnomorph fossils are from the very beginning of the Devonian (the Lochkovian age, some 416 My ago). Tetrapodomorphs must be equally old even if we have no fossils from that time yet. The two groups may have separated already in the Silurian. The real upper bound on the possible age of Tetrapoda (which are a subgroup of Tetrapodomorpha) is the tetrapodomorph/dipnomorph split. They must be younger, but how much younger is anyone guess until more fossils are found. If Tetrapoda are older than previously thought, so be it. Even 400 Mya is compatible with the datable nodes in the family tree. If we find new bones, we'll know more.Piotr
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Tiktaalik-First, the set-up:
"In a nutshell, the 'fish–tetrapod transition' usually refers to the origin, from their fishy ancestors, of creatures with four legs bearing digits (fingers and toes), and with joints that permit the animals to walk on land. This event took place between about 385 and 360 million years ago toward the end of the period of time known as the Devonian. The Devonian is often referred to as the 'Age of Fishes,' as fish form the bulk of the vertebrate fossil record for this time."- Jennifer Clack, The Fish–Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations; "Evolution: Education and Outreach", 2009, Volume 2, Number 2, Pages 213-223
Got that- "the transition" refers to an event, a specific event that occurred between two specified time periods, a time when there were fish and no tetrapods and the time when there were fish and tetrapods. With that now firmly established we return to "Your Inner Fish" chapter 1 where Shubin discusses what he was looking for- hint: evidence for the transition, ie the event:
Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythings" and the "Everythings with limbs". Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin pages 9-10 (bold and italics added)
OK he did it just exactly as described, bracketed the dates. However his dates were wrong, which means he did not find evidence for the transition, which occurred many millions of years earlier. In order to find what he was looking for, evidence of the transition, he needed to focus on rocks 400 million years old, as the new data puts terapods in existence about 395 million years ago. Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland Why can't evolutionists understand that?Joe
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
Henry:
Why would a designer bother with transitionals?
They are not transitionals. They are separate living organisms. BTW there aren't any known fishapods between the time of fish and the time of tetrapods. That should be a problem for evolutionism, yet it isn't.Joe
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Piotr:
Nobody (at least nobody who knows what she/he is talking about) claims Tiktaalik is the direct ancestor of the Tetrapoda.
True. So what? Shubin said he was looking for evidence for the transition. And he said to do that he had to look between the times that fish lived and tetrapods appeared. Had he the new data of the tetrapod track in Poland he wouldn't have been looking where he did.Joe
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
Humbled@24, Completely wrong yet again, but in that at least you are consistent. Go to Museum, see the way in which fossils of skeletons correlates with the ages of the rocks in which they are found. The transitioning is obvious.Henry Crun
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Mapou, Again I have to disagree with you: design doesn't always work like that. If you had said "development" I would have agreed, but the best designs are often those that are completely different and groundbreaking. But suppose you are right (I don't think so, but just suppose): what does your hypothesis about the way the designer did it, tell you about the nature of the designer?Henry Crun
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply